The war of Kurukshestra, the clash of the mighty Kauravas and invincible Pandavas creating the epic called Mahabharata happened because of a woman called Draupadi.

Wife to the Panadavas, daughter of Draupad, twin to Dhristadyumna, Draupadi was the leading lady of Mahabharata. And as the “adage” goes, “the great war of Kurukshetra was fought over a woman“.

After suffering humiliation in the hands of his spurned childhood friend Drona, Draupad, a Maharathi and a king had carried out an yagna for birthing a son who would be destined to kill Dronacharya, thus fulfilling his revenge. In that same yagna, he got a daughter who was named Krishnaa for her dark complexion. Even

if she wasn’t unwanted, Krishnaa wasn’t a child that the Panchal-raj had wanted.

The entry of Draupadi in the Kurus clan occurred with the Swayamvara, the bride’s self-choice marriage ceremony. The kings of countries far and near had come to win the hand of Panchali (daughter of the king of Panchal). The contest was simple- hit the eye of the revolving fish above by looking at its reflection. But the contest proved too much for most, some couldn’t even string the bow.

Duryodhana with his brothers and his closest friend Karna were also in attendance. The Pandavas were also present, but in the guise of Brahmins having recently escaped from the Jatugriha, the house of lac.

Karna was an unparalleled warrior, the contest was child’s play for him. It would have been nothing for him, and the bride would have been his, if not for the bride herself. As Karna had been about to take aim, Panchali had called out saying, “I will not marry a soota putra (the son of a charioteer)!”

For us who know the story of Karna’s real lineage, of Karna’s valour and adherence to Dharma have no qualms in reprimanding Draupadi for her statement. But to the daughter of a king, a princess, to one who has heard of the wild tales, the whispers, was Draupadi wrong? Was the woman in her wrong? Wasn’t it to be her choice, her marriage? Karna was arrogant, he was proud, maybe it wasn’t something that appealed to the woman in her. No one her asked why, after all she is only a woman in the epic.

Arjuna, the third Pandava, had won the hand of the princess, and she had not cried out in protest even though he had done so as a poor Brahmin. She didn’t turn away, being the princess she was, even when the five brothers had took her on foot to their humble hut, ignorant of the real identity of her husband.

Then came the greatest upheaval in Draupadi’s life, when Kunti, the mother of the Pandavas had asked her sons to share between themselves whatever they had got, unaware that what they had got was a bride.

Draupadi married the five brothers, the sons of Kunti who could not disobey their mother’s words even if it applied to a woman. Did Draupadi protest. did the independent, brave and outspoken woman speak on her own behest? Did she return back home? She might have been spurned away but the Draupadi of Mahabharata we know, she was far more stronger than that. But it still didn’t matter, she was a woman in a great epic, made to do whatever she was told to.

Did Draupadi not enjoy being the queen of Yudhistira, the king of Indraprastha? Yes, she did. She was proud of it. But is it something to less to ask when she already was shared by the five brothers? But it came much later. As Draupadi had not set out to be the Queen when she had first married Arjuna, not knowing that he was actually a Pandava.

But if Draupadi could not be condemned for polyandry (it was Shiva’s boon, and curse, in her previous life that she will have five husbands), she had to be condemned for adultery. Imagination and speculation making a character colourful, and belittle the woman, Draupadi allegedly was in love with Karna. Indications of which do not appear in Mahabharata (Kashi Das/Kaliprasanna Singha). She probably had refused Karna on the urging of her brother, or even Lord Krishna, but there was no chronicle of her pining for Karna, even if Karna had pined for her. But then, so had Duryodhana. With no one to judge the veracity, condemned guilty for a wayward perception only, It was just another notch against her womanhood. The blame surfaced again. No woman could be powerful and virtuous, and left alone as such.

Draupadi became the queen of the Pandavas. The underlying jealousy and envy towards the Pandavas became even more pronounced with it. It was the envy towards a man with a beautiful, dynamic wife. But Draupadi was never just an ornamental wife to the five brothers. A princess by bearing and birth she was the ideal wife and woman who took it upon her the hardships and tribulations that came with her place in the Kuru clan.

Draupadi had fallen on her way to Heavens when she with the five brothers had started towards the end of their journey. Yudhisthira, the son of Dharma, the eldest Pandava had said it was because Draupadi had always been partial towards Arjuna in her heart of hearts. Again, Draupadi had been condemned and held in contempt in the tale of the warriors as no one ever bothered to think of the woman’s heart. A wife belonging to five men – how could it be expected that the woman in her will be impartial to all of them. It is not simple enough to be shared, but to set aside pieces of the heart for her five husbands equally, is it possible for even the greatest of characters in history?

But the irony was Draupadi was partial to that man, whom she never had completely. Arjuna wasn’t a man who was satisfied with one wife. Even knowing Draupadi’s possessive nature and obsessive love for him, Arjuna’s wife in the truest form had been Subhadra, sister to Lord Krishna, mother of Abhimanyu. Yudhisthira in Draupadi’s opinion was weak and a servant to the vice of gambling. She could never turn to him in her time of need. Bheema, the second brother was Draupadi’s solace and saviour. It happened when the Panadavas had to spend the final year of their exile unidentified. It happened in Virata’s palace when Keechaka, the commander of Virata’s troops happened to chance upon Queen Sudheshna’s maid, Sairandhri, Draupadi in disguise. Suffering humiliation and affront in the hands of Keechaka, whose advances the married Sairandhri had rejected over and over again, she had begged for justice in front of Virata and Kanka (Yudhisthira skilled as dice caster) but they had failed her. But what had hurt Draupadi was her husband, Yudhisthira who witnessed her humiliation but refrained from avenging it. And Draupadi had done what any woman would do, she had gone to that husband she knew who cared enough about her honour- Bheema. It was Bheema disguised as Ballava, the palace cook, who killed Keechaka for humiliating Draupadi who had been living in his terror. Draupadi indeed had used Bheema’s temper and outrage to her own ends but as the woman she did what she had to to protect her virtue, her honor when she had suffered the insult of having another husband turn a blind eye to her misfortune.

Even with her varied but not unwarranted opinions of her husbands, Draupadi had never turned away from any of them and had been an equal wife to them all, in luxury, in adversity, in gains and in losses.

But the blame, the final blame for the great war, the clash between brothers, the Kauravas and Panadavas, the near extinction of the Kuru clan lay on the shoulders of Panchali.

Being lost over a game of dice by her gambling husband, dragged out by her tresses in a single piece of clothing into the court of men by Duhshasana, insinuated and motioned by Duryodhana to sit on his lap, and finally tried being stripped off of her clothing in front of everyone, elders who stayed silent, husbands who stood with their heads hung, it was Draupadi’s “actions” that brought about the downfall of the clan.

It was not Duhshasana’s actions of dragging his sister-in-law and forcibly trying to unclothe her in court that brought about their deaths, it wasn’t Duryodhana and Karna’s taunts on Draupadi that sealed their fate, it wasn’t Yudhisthira’s gambling with the treacherous Shakuni where he had the audacity to wager his wife after he had wagered himself (along with his brothers) and lost, it wasn’t Dhritarashtra, father to Kauravas who cheered and rejoiced when Shakuni won wager after wager, it surely wasn’t Drona or Bhisma, the elders who did nothing throughout the humiliation of Draupadi that had only one culmination, the one that ended with war.

It wasn’t the men’s lust, their greed, their animal-like proclivity that was the reason of Kurukshetra. It was Draupadi’s fault. It was her fault as she was a woman, a powerful and a coveted one. Where was the Dharma, the righteousness here? Of Yudhisthira, of Karna, of Bhisma, Drona, Kripa or Dhritarashtra? Where was the justice?

When Bheema had broken Duryodhana’s thighs in the duel, Lord Krishna was faulted for reminding Bheema of his vow (after Duryodhana had gestured to Draupadi to sit on his lap) by patting his own thighs; Bheema was called unworthy by Balarama, teachers to both Bheema and Duryodhana over the same act. Where was this code of ethics, this adherence to righteousness when Draupadi was dishonoured? Yudhisthira, the Dharma putra, had to envision hell for his one small lie to Dronacharya about the death of Ashwatthama, the elephant, how come he wasn’t condemned to the same after he had subjected his own wife to suffer and be shamed and dishonoured?

But in a tale of great warriors, who is an insignificant woman?

Draupadi lost all her sons, her father, her brother but she was to blame for the massacre. After all she allowed herself to be humiliated and the war had to be fought.

At her birth, it was prophesied that she will be the cause for the end of the Kshatriyas, the fall of the great Kauravas. And so she was.

The blame is not with the Kauravas, not with the Pandavas, not with the elders of the court; it was not a war fought of greed, of lust, of envy or of pride but of gender. The blame of the the great war of Kurukshetra, of Mahabharata lies with Draupadi, a woman because she was one.

After all, it was easier, and there was no one else man enough to shoulder the burden and accept responsibility.

The so called holy scriptures were scripted to obligate the demands of male masculine ego, with a deliberate favoritism and manipulative social programming to substantiate their gender dominance . (God is always a male in all major religions)

When someone decides a criteria for something, they easily skip the question, “Who decides the criteria for the criteria?”

Read, “Ramayana Vishavruksham” by Ranganaayakamma . It exposes the hypocrisy of so called wise saints and noble sages. You will wonder why Rama became a Hero/God

I am glad that I read this…was not aware of many of the things written here.As far as Draupadi's plight is concerned..I think it has been going on since ages,maybe it was just the beginning..the more a woman is able to suffer,the more she is made to suffer.No one else was responsible for this but Draupadi herself was.Had she protested and not allowed herself to be dictated by men ,it would have set an example for all women ages ago and things would have been different.

@Dhiman: That is an interesting thought… But I also think, history and especially the epics that were carried down generations through telling (not reading) have changed over ages, fitting the needs of the victors, rulers of the society.

@Shruti: Thank you Shruti, and welcome here! Women were never thought to be important enough, not ignored, just not thought to have any role at all. A reason why I like Draupadi, in spite of all her failings and plights, she stood up to her right.

@Mahesh: Yes, they were. But more than being social they were warrior's stories… But after generations we, who are not warriors look for that human emotions that they had forgot to inscribe. Mahabharata is my favourite epic with all its flaws but Ramayana, I just can't find the validity, even though I understand Valmiki had only chronicled about Rama the warrior, not the husband or father. Plus, stories change over ages according to the society rulers and victors then.

@Jaspreet: The plight of women, I dunno if it has been going on for long but epics like Ramayana, statements about women (like the one I wrote in the beginning) are handy for weak men who use them delightedly as excuses.Mahabharata is one of my favourite epics. Draupadi is a favourite character too, as she actually did stand up to those who crossed her path. She was indeed powerful. This power scared people. The war that was finally fought was inevitable, with or without Draupadi but her power made it easy for others to blame her.Women weren't allowed to fight warsthen, but she did fight for her rights. She did set an example but over the ages her name, her character has been tainted so that women don't be like her. Don't you know, girls are never named after Draupadi's name? It is said they will then have the same terrible life. What is that but the machinations of a male-dominated society to keep their women under the thumb?

@BK Chowla-ji: My point, exactly! History, epics changes with the need of the rulers of the society to fit their own ideas of right-and-wrong into the common people. Everything chronicled is just a version and rarely the truth. Like Draupadi is never blamed in the story except in the prophecy (and who says that's the real version?) but later by common people in sayings.

Hmmm…. I am glad i read it. I have read Mahabharata, watched it on television too. So there was nothing new in the story. BUT This take on it, was unexpected, unread and extremely powerful.I will not be a feminist here and say the writers have been biased and a woman is blamed or likewise. I wont say any of those and spoil the effect your piece has created.

All i will say is, right or wrong, Draupadi never regretted over her actions and this is what i most like about her.

I have always felt that whatever the reason for the war.. the Pandavas won each battle with some or other sort of act, it was the shrewd and magical or whatever it was .. In truth the pandavas if fought the Kauravas in open battle could not have won.

Krishana did a lot of acts which I am sorry to say were a bit decieving.

Anyway this article is on Draupadi, yeah i agree with you on a lot of points , she had to do what she had to. in order ot save herself and I have no QUALMS on that, it is every human beings right to protect themselves.

But some of the things you mentioned about karana etc , so let me tell you one thing all these are Stories, written by HumAN historians, as is now in the modern world.. the KING or the clan that ruled at that time was always shows as the righteous one, so history has been MANHANDLED over the age, we dont know how much is true or wrong..

SO i would not put my beleif on the books or whatever we read, in those times it was male who was the dominant person, so most of the history is written showing him as GOD like person.

It is a pity that some of the stories we read about men then , we start to PREY them, the same things if I do NOW, I would be called otherwise… I am not taking any pick on anyone but history is full of such things.

Draupadi could not have said anything at that time , because the time was not women friendly then well as much as it is now.. which still is NOTHING, we still look upon women as some inferior species. Hence whatever happened , Happened.

The thing is we INDIANS have been made to beleive in so many things as we grow up, ethics, truthfulness, this and that . but all that is NOT always correct, I am sure majority of the girls NOW today in this age if asked by there parents to do something WILL HAVE TO DO IT, like it or not.. they will not open there mouth and just accept, a FEw who do , we praise them for a day or two and forgotten.

Anyway I have taken a lot of your space, well written and a good take , unexpected. but a lot of BUTS in all the stories.. 🙂

very interesting postalthough draupadi was a strong woman but had she exercised little control over her lounge and not laughed at duryodhan and made a comment ” Andhe ka beta andha or something of that sort” may be story would have been different. (this if from the knowledge we gained through the serials so I may be wrong)but i do admire her guts, her strength in handling five husbandsi wonder what she must have felt at those timesthese days a woman having two husbands is unheard of, but during draupadi is still respected .

With so many characters, with such a big plot and many sub plots, Mahabharata is the greatest epic. Each character has a purpose. And when it comes to Draupadi's character, I don't think it's the result of male ego, or perhaps, male chauvinism. Women have always played an important role in our culture. They have always been respected (in mythological stories, that is, which teach us to respect them). Draupadi, in this instance, is not a victim. It's just my opinion – in all the mythological stories, if you notice, a man who disrespects a woman always suffers. The only mistake that Duryodhana makes is that. So is the case with Raavana. Apart from this they are highly respected for many reasons. But they still suffered. So what I think is, Draupadi's character was sketched to showcase the weaknesses of men, and to show that they will suffer should they ever disrespect her.

And about her going to Bheema, and not Yudhisthira, for help is considered; i think it's written to show the various personalities and differences of men – their weaknesses and strengths. No matter who he is, he will have his negative and positive attributes attached to his personality.Directly or indirectly, she (a woman) can either make you or break you, and that is her strength. All the instances you gave have been written to show, and not tell, this strength of women. This, I believe, is the essence of such epics – an existing world can end, or a new world can begin – all because of women.

A very nice take on the topic girl 🙂 Most of the wars have been fought over women. Remember Troy? A woman was responsible for it too. But yeah putting everything on her head is not right too. Your post made me think and rethink. This epic has been analyzed from so many views by some many authors, that the actual story has gotten distorted I feel. One thing that I really wanna do is read the original version written by Vyasa himself. Because each author get biased towards the character he likes the most and defends it.

…No one else was responsible for this but Draupadi herself was.Had she protested and not allowed herself to be dictated by men ,it would have set an example for all women ages ago and things would have been different.

What choices did Draupadi have?? She chose Arjun over Karan and Arjun put her in a position where she was shared by his brothers. Could she go back to her father, who already did not want her. She run away, where? Would Arjun and party let her run after they had twiddled their thumbs to Karan and everyone else. She could have definitely committed suicide. But she chose to live than die. It is like blaming the victim for getting abused. It is pretty easier than challenging the abuser. Smooth choiceless ness is no choice. Is choice without options a choice?? 🙂

Draupadi did fight at every insult and attrocity thrown at her. She even challenged Arjun for multiple marriages. Kunti for senseless agreement of her son's to share her in the name of protecting her word. Yudhishtar, and the sabha elders. Authr has mentioned everything in the post.

@anjugandhi,

…draupadi said Andhe ka beta andha or something of that sort” may be story would have been different…

You are right we do not know for sure if she really said that. A decade ago I was in Chandigarh visiting a friend. Her brother came home all charged up and disheavelled, his group had a fight with another group of boys. What was the reason for fight? One of the guys from the other group was giving him bitter looks (O mainu kauda kauda jhaak reha si). They just needed an excuse to fight and beat the crap out of other group.

Like wise Duryodhana and party already were waiting for an excuse to fight. Here he found it in the form of Draupadi's words. They were such cowards that they could not even take responsibility of their actions. This in hindi it would be Mahabharat ka theekra daraupadi ke sir phod diya.

@Bikramjit

You are right, history is like a black baffalo the one with the staff takes it home. I don't remember the exact quote about the history of oppressed it is something like… when every body else is killed there is always one left to tell what happened. So is the history of women.

…Shiva's boon, and curse, in her previous life that she will have five husbands…

Boon was that she asked for everything in one man that is not possible so Shiva sent five EMIs. 🙂 As if saying not yet invented wait for few hundred years was against the rule. Shiva could have negotiated and reduced the number of demands.

I recently read the book – Palace of Illusions..read it..it will give you many more insights..Draupadi's character comes out stronger than the one you have portrayed in your post..you will love that book..

I won't reveal many other things which are there in the book as I want you to read it..please do 🙂

My problem with these kinds of books are the liberty the author takes with the actual narration to put in their imaginations to change, though subtly, but in it's entirety the essence of a character. Because this is the most basic, and the oldest way the epics have changed from the actual, original version to what they are today. And how many go back and read the original and then can read the 'modern' versions (more often than not born of unrestricted imagination) to separate pre-existing facts from newly included ones? This is how Rama the warrior became Rama-the-insensitive husband. No one seems to remember that Valmiki's narration was that of Rama's prowess and not his personal life! That Draupadi was not in love with Karna, that is not there in Kashi Das's Mahabharat (I don't know about Vyasa's), especially not when she'd obsessed all her life over winning Arjuna. I really hate the freedom they take to change the story,, and people who've never read the others before don't know a fig about what's original and what's the author's selling funda.

How do you know that? Because I doubt it, it is in stark contradiction of a lot of other escapades. And the language is not the Sanskrit what we know today but was classical Sanskrit. Remember the story about even the scribe, Lord Ganesha having trouble deciphering the meaning? I am sorry but I have my doubts.

I am not an expert in Mahabharata or Indian mythology, but I must point out a subtle difference. You are walking on the road and you saw someone driving a bike with his lights on in the morning. To do him good, you call out but when he pays you attention, he meets with an accident. Now you are responsible for the accident. But you are not wrong. Similarly, the existence of the character Draupadi led to the war of Mahabharata, because of misdeeds of the men around her. If she didnt exist, Bheema wouldnt have made those vows or Keechaka wouldnt have been killed. However, she was not wronged anywhere in the true sense of the word. She is venerated in our stories too, as a true devotee of Krishna and also for being the ideal wife. I have been watching and reading a lot of Mahabharata these days and what I have observed is that the message actually says, women have to be respected. Draupadi rejecting Karna was to show that she still had the choice in spite of the Swayamvara's conditions. Rukmini writing a letter to Krishan and Subhadra driving the chariot when she elopes with Arjuna are all examples to prove that women were powerful, had their rights and were extremely advanced in their thought process even in those days. One sentence from Kunti talks about the respect given to women more than anything else..can u see any modern day children sharing their wives like Pandavas did at the behest of their mother? Women were respected back then as well, in fact much more. Please don't lead yourself to think otherwise just because some foolish men like Duryodhana didnt practice the code of ethics. In fact, as far as Bhishma's silence is concerned, that is the reason he says he lied down on the bed of arrows as punishment to let the bad blood flow out..

@Krish: I think you missed the context of the post. I have no qualms or misconception of what MAhabharata talks about. It respects women and marks their strength. What I talk about here is the interpretation of Mahabharata, how it is perceived and misinterpreted in society to conform women according to what the patriarchs want.And you say, “Similarly, the existence of the character Draupadi led to the war of Mahabharata, because of misdeeds of the men around her. If she didnt exist, Bheema wouldnt have made those vows or Keechaka wouldnt have been killed.”–So today if women get raped, it's because they exist? That Duryodhana was the villain only because there was a Draupadi in Mahabharata??? 😀“However, she was not wronged anywhere in the true sense of the word.”– You really think that being humiliated, that too physically, and all above, is not wronged?! I am quite out of words from these insights to how some people think!

I will try to answer the points you have raised one by one, although arguments rarely lead us anywhere.1. “At her birth, it was prophesied that she will be the cause for the end of the Kshatriyas, the fall of the great Kauravas. And so she was.” – this line about prophecy convinced me that your sarcasm wasn't directed at society, although there was an inkling of a doubt. It was directed against the great epic itself. Hence I chose to comment.2. So today if women get raped, it's because they exist? That Duryodhana was the villain only because there was a Draupadi in Mahabharata??? 😀Why do you want to play victim? What I am saying is not that Draupadi is responsible. It would be as foolish as saying Krishna was the one who caused the war of Mahabharata, because he was the one who encouraged Arjuna to fight. But anyone who understands the depth of the epic will know better. What I am saying is she was a character in a grand play of the lord himself, an instrument. (Refer mythology, where earth complains about the growing sins and burden and Vishnu promises he will come and relieve her by ending adharma)3. You really think that being humiliated, that too physically, and all above, is not wronged?!

You got the grammar amd english meaning wrong. in fact, i followed it up with the words, she was venerated meaning respected. by “not wronged” i meant Mahabharata didnt intend to show her in the wrong light at any point of time. Mahabharata, the epic has always shown her as a great women.that is the reason her curse comes out true in the end too. I hope I have made the points clear. And if you really want to use the backdrop of Mahabharata, there are nuances which are less known but will help us understand the meaning of actions, events and characters in the grand plan of Lord Krishna. Women are always worthy or respect although I agree with you that society has tended to use it differently..

@Krish: I have grown up with Mahabharata, though I'm far from being an expert I do know it quite well. Again I will say, I have no problems with Veda Vyasa's Mahabharata. BUT WE interpret it according to what we THINK it should be than what it IS. THAT is what I have tried to say here.That is the CONTEXT of the post.I find your words conflicting and contradictory, yes, it may be my understanding of the language. And I think you should have chosen the words better. I'm sure you didn't mean it as negatively as it sounded to my ears! But i really don't agree every one is an instrument in a grand play. Then we wouldn't have to pay for our sins or be blessed for our goodness. Then, there would be no free will.

Ms. Guria, You are probably a Christian by religion. Writing on, and on and on is very easy once one has gone through surface skimming of one of the most powerful epics of this World, the Mahabharat. You are blaming Panchali and charging some poor ladies here with your scraps. What you know about Panchali, what you know about Shri Krishna or Shri Ram ? Do you know that these Maha-Kavyas have been created to establish life-long benchmarks for Humanity? The sole reason for creation (by God) of these Maha-Kavyas is to give foundation laying bench mark preaching for generations to come and generations to go. Had Ram thought, He could have directly killed Ravana. But no, because then no message could have been given to Humanity ! The message was successfully given, by creation of multiple revered characters like Hanuman, Seeta, Dasrath, Lakshman, Bharat, Kaikeyi and so on……and creation of characters like Vibheeshan. These side characters' acts are understood as bench marks for different relationships ! How a friend should behave, how a wife should be, how a father must be for his son, how a mother thinks for her son, what are the responsibilities of a King for his subject, how sons should be to parents, all these messages couldn't be given if some rights and some wrongs were not told !! In the same way, Karna was fated to be very pure, very great warrior, very great friend, very great son of Surya, still was given a fate of being wrong in terming 'Panchali' a veshya during dyoot-sabha. He was fated that way, so that people learn from him. He was fated to be greatest donor, so he was there in his last moments donating his golden 'tooth' to Indra. In the same way, Panchali was fated to play the role because great Lord Shri Krishna had to get a reason for the complete plot. Panchali's character was as pure as Seeta. Mind it. She set the example of how a daughter in-law should obey her mother in-law's orders, how she should be fair to her husband, and how revengeful she must be for her own insult. From where you got all this bullshit that she was partial towards Bheem or Arjun? And she was inclined towards Karna ? What are you writing man ? Write the same about Jesus, you are free. But don't write wrong about our Maha-Kavyas and their 'worshiped since centuries' Gods and idols. Please. I hope you won't mind my words. Abhay Pratap Singh

And you, Sir, must be one of those characters in the epic who witnessed it unfold first-hand? Or may be someone who finds it easy to interpret things as it suits you? And what I know? How do you know what I know? Also, please do not comment out of context as you definitely did not understand the context of the written post. Please. I hope you won't mind my words.And, no I am not Christian- as if that matters.

The funny thing. Draupadi never acted like a victim. She didn't perceive herself as a victim of men. She was instrumental in bringing down the bad guys(kauravas)and establishing dharma/justice. That is exactly how I always saw her role to be. She is depicted as a strong women who handled her extraordinary problems as bravely as any of the pandavas did. Infact, I remember my mother telling she is the avatar of shakti and also feminine version of krishna, who is born to bring down the bad guys.The moral of both ramayana and Mahabharata(message of manu smriti too) is that, If one insults woman, one must expect the end his vamsha(lineage)

I dont agree that the Mahabharat happened because of draupadi. No single reason can be fixed for Mahabharat. The original scripture was called Jay by maharshi vyasa.”Yato Dharmastato Jayah” is the message. Vyasa has repeatedly glorified nara and narayana as the focal points of the epic. The important point is that victory is where Dharma is. Saying Draupadi was the reason is too out of context.

Yudhishthir, the very word means “stable in war”. All the four Pandavas were instigated by Draupadi, except yudhishthir. This is a sign of the attribute that makes him the righteous king, because he is able to elevate his thinking above the personal dualities of insult-respect, victory-defeat and think at level of righteousness w.r.t the society at large. Yudhishthir's actual eligibility as an emperor is revealed in the interesting incidence when dharmaraj tests the pandavas when in the exile and except Yudhishthir no pandava is able to stand up to his test of rigjteousness. Yudhishthir was truly exemplary as regards his conduct and righteous behaviour.

It is not right to say that Draupadi was alone responsible for the war. Draupadi tried her best not to be humiliated by Kauravas and you say that Draupadi suffered humiliation quietly and calmly.Duryodhan thought that the kingdom was his and not Yuddishtir. This was the main reason for the war and you say that it was not fought for greed.Draupadi refused Karna for marriage because she thought karna belonged to low caste and it was not eligible for a woman to marry a man of a low caste than woman at that time.Main reason for war was Shakun.